ML12122A071

Enclosure 1: April 2012 Report on the Status of Public Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206

ML12122A071
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom, Palisades, Indian Point, Cooper, Byron, Pilgrim, North Anna, Crystal River, Callaway, Vogtle, Fort Calhoun, FitzPatrick
Issue date:	05/14/2012
From:	Leeds E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Commissioners NRC/OCM
Banic M
References
EDATS: SECY-2012-0194, WITS 200700062
Download: ML12122A071 (26)

Text

Enclosure 1 ADAMS Accession No. ML12122A071 Monthly 10 CFR 2.206, Requests for Action Under This Subpart, Status Report

PETITIONS CLOSED DURING THIS PERIOD FACILITY PETITIONER/EDO No. Page North Anna Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Thomas Saporito, Saprodani Associates 2 G20110668 CCURRENT STATUS OF OPEN PETITIONS Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3 Thomas Saporito, Saprodani Associates 3 G20090690 U.S. Nuclear Power Reactors (Related to Thomas Saporito, Saprodani Associates 4 Japan Earthquake)

G20110171 Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 1, 2, Eric Schneiderman, Office of the Attorney 5 and 3 General, State of New York G20110221 General Electric Boiling-Water Reactor Mark I David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned 6 and Mark II Units Scientists G20110563 General Electric Boiling-Water Reactor Mark I Paul Gunter, Reactor Oversight Project and 7 Units (Related to Japan Earthquake) Kevin Kamps, Nuclear Waste Specialist G20110262 All licensees of power reactors Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) 8 G20110579 Cooper Nuclear Station Thomas Saporito, Saprodani Associates 9 G20110506 Omaha Public Power District, Fort Calhoun Thomas Saporito, Saprodani Associates 10 Station, Unit 1 G20110492 North Anna Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Beyond Nuclear 11 G20110757 CURRENT STATUS OF OPEN PETITIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Mary Lampert 12 G20100454 Callaway Nuclear Generating Station Lawrence Criscione 13 G20110740 Palisades Nuclear Plant Michael Mulligan 14 G20120022 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Stations, Units 2 Michael Mulligan 15 and 3 G20120052 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 Mark Leyse 16 G20120142 Palisades Nuclear Plant Thomas Saporito, Saprodani Associates 17 G20120149 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Beyond Nuclear et al. 18 G20120172 Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit 2 NRDC 19 G20120253 Byron Station Units 1 and 2; Braidwood Station Barry Quigley 20 Units 1 and 2 G20120269

CLOSED PETITION EDO # G20110668 (Petition Age: 8 months)

Facility: North Anna Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Licensee Type: Reactor Petitioner(s): Thomas Saporito, Saprodani Associates Date of Petition: September 8, 2011 DD To Be Issued by: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Proposed DD Issuance: February 22, 2012 Final DD Issuance: April 26, 2012 Last Contact with Petitioner: February 22, 2012 Petition Manager: Jon Thompson Case Attorney: Mauri Lemoncelli Issues/Actions Requested:

In the wake of the August 23, 2011, earthquake at the North Anna Nuclear Plant, which exceeded the design basis earthquake peak ground acceleration for the plant, and for reasons described in the petition, the petitioner requests: (1) escalated enforcement action to suspend or revoke the North Anna Nuclear Plant licenses; (2) issuance of a notice of violation proposing a $1M fine; and (3) issuance of an order to keep North Anna Nuclear Plant in cold shutdown until the completion of 4 sets of activities to ensure the safety of the plant which are described in the petition.

Background:

• On September 8, 2011, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.

• For a summary of NRC actions from August through October 2011, see the November 2011 monthly 10 CFR 2.206 status report (ADAMS Accession No. ML11340A112).

• On November 7, 2011, the petitioner addressed the PRB in a teleconference. The PRB made no changes to its initial recommendation that the petition met the criteria for review and plans to accept the petition for review.

• On February 22, 2012, the NRC issued the combined acknowledgement letter/proposed Directors Decision (ADAMS Accession No. ML11356A164) to document the PRBs decision to accept the petition for review and offer an opportunity for the petitioner and licensee to comment on the proposed Directors Decision.

Current Status/Next Steps:

• On April 26, 2012, the NRC issued the final Directors Decision (ADAMS Accession No. ML12094A224.) The petitioners comments were dispositioned in the final Directors Decision. All NRC actions on this issue are closed.

OPEN PETITION EDO # G20090690 (Petition Age: 29 months)

Facility: Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3 Licensee Type: Reactor Petitioner(s): Thomas Saporito, Saprodani Associates Date of Petition: December 5, 2009 DD To Be Issued by: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Proposed DD Issuance: December 3, 2012 Final DD Issuance: To Be Determined (TBD)

Last Contact with Petitioner: April 26, 2012 Petition Manager: Farideh Saba Case Attorney: Michael Clark Issues/Actions Requested:

For reasons specified within the petition request, the petitioner requests that the NRC take enforcement action against Progress Energy Company, the licensee for Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3, in the interest of protecting public health and safety regarding the structural failure of the Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3, containment building.

Background:

• On December 5, 2009, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.

• For a complete summary of NRC actions through October 2011, see the November 2011 monthly 10 CFR 2.206 status report (ADAMS Accession No. ML11341A040).

• On November 8, 2011, the petition manager contacted the petitioner by e-mail to inform him that the staffs review was still in progress.

• On January 13, 2012, the petitioner emailed the NRC supplementing his petition with expert testimony to be given at public hearings in Florida this summer.

• On January 17, 2012, the petition manager requested the petitioner to submit supplemental information to the NRC in writing and discuss how it supports the original petition request.

• On February 21, 2012, the petition manager contacted the petitioner by e-mail to inform him that the planned issuance date of the proposed Directors Decision has remained unchanged (December 3, 2012).

Current Status/Next Steps:

• On April 26, 2012, the petition manager informed the petitioner that the planned issuance date of the proposed directors decision has not changed.

• The next step is for the petition manager to prepare a proposed Directors Decision documenting the NRCs response to issues raised in the petition. The petitioner and licensee will receive an opportunity to comment on the proposed Directors Decision. The estimated issuance date of the proposed Directors Decision is December 3, 2012. The target issuance date of the final Directors Decision is 75 days after the issuance date of the proposed Directors Decision.

OPEN PETITION EDO # G20110171 (Petition Age: 14 months)

Facility: U.S. Nuclear Power Reactors Licensee Type: Reactor Petitioner(s): Thomas Saporito, Saprodani Associates Date of Petition: March 12, 2011 DD To Be Issued by: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Proposed DD Issuance: January 31, 2013 Final DD Issuance: TBD Last Contact with Petitioner: March 6, 2012 Petition Manager: Peter Tam Case Attorney: Michael Clark Issues/Actions Requested:

For detailed reasons described in the petition, the petitioner seeks immediate enforcement action as it requests that the NRC issue an order for the immediate shutdown of all nuclear power reactors in the United States that are known to be located on or near an earthquake fault line.

Background:

• On March 12, 2011, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.

• For a complete summary of NRC actions through December 2011, see the December 2011 monthly 10 CFR 2.206 status report (ADAMS Accession No. ML120120145).

• On January 5, 2012, the petition manager informed the petitioner that the petition review board (PRB) is continuing to evaluate the petition and expects to extend the current target date of January 31, 2012, into the future.

• On January 9, 2012, the OEDO approved an extension until January 31, 2013, to issue the proposed Directors Decision since the issues raised in the petition pertain to the resolution of Near Term Task Force Recommendations associated with the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident.

• On March 6, 2012, the petition manager contacted the petitioner by e-mail to inform him that the PRB is continuing to evaluate his petition and currently has a target date of January 31, 2013, to complete its review.

Current Status/Next Steps:

• The next step is for the petition manager to prepare a proposed Directors Decision documenting the NRCs response to issues raised in the petition. The petitioner and licensee will receive an opportunity to comment on the proposed Directors Decision. The estimated issuance date of the proposed Directors Decision is January 31, 2013. The target issuance date of the final Directors Decision is 75 days after the issuance date of the proposed Directors Decision.

OPEN PETITION EDO # G20110221 (Petition Age: 13 months)

Facility: Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 1, 2, and 3 Licensee Type: Reactor Petitioner(s): Eric Schneiderman, Office of the Attorney General, State of New York Date of Petition: March 28, 2011 DD To Be Issued by: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Proposed DD Issuance: July 31, 2012 Final DD Issuance: TBD Last Contact with Petitioner: April 24, 2012 Petition Manager: Doug Pickett Case Attorney: Brett Klukan and Bob Rader Issues/Actions Requested:

For reasons specified within the petition, the petitioner requests that the NRC immediately issue an order that takes the following actions with respect to Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 1, 2, and 3:

• Identify the violations of 10 CFR 50.48, Fire Protection, and Sections III.F and III.G of Appendix R, Fire Protection Program for Nuclear Power Facilities Operating Prior to January 1, 1979, to 10 CFR Part 50, that exist as of the date of the petition (i.e., March 28, 2011), at Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 1, 2, and 3.

• Compel Entergy and its affiliates to comply on or before September 20, 2011, with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48 and Sections III.F and III.G of Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50, for all the fire zones in Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 2 and 3, and any Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit 1 fire zone or system, structure, or component relied on by Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 2 or 3.

• Convene an evidentiary hearing before the Commission to adjudicate the violations by Entergy and its affiliates of 10 CFR 50.48 and Sections III.F and III.G of Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50, at Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 1, 2, and 3.

Background:

• On March 28, 2011, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.

• For a complete summary of NRC actions before March 1, 2012, see the February 2012 monthly 10 CFR 2.206 status report (ADAMS Accession No. ML12059A094).

Current Status/Next Steps:

• On April 11, 2012, the OEDO approved an extension request until July 31, 2012, to prepare the proposed Directors Decision.

• On April 24, 2012, the petition manager informed the petitioner that the proposed Directors Decision documenting the NRCs response to issues raised in the petition is being prepared. The petitioner and licensee will receive an opportunity to comment on the proposed Directors Decision.

The target issuance date of the final Directors Decision is 75 days after the issuance date of the proposed Directors Decision.

OPEN PETITION EDO # G20110563 (Petition Age: 9 months)

Facility: General Electric (GE) Boiling-Water Reactor (BWR) Mark I and Mark II Units Licensee Type: Reactor Petitioner(s): David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists Date of Petition: July 29, 2011 DD To Be Issued by: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Proposed DD Issuance: January 31, 2013 Final DD Issuance: TBD Last Contact with Petitioner: February 8, 2012 Petition Manager: John Lamb Case Attorney: Christopher Hair Issues/Actions Requested:

The petitioner requests that the NRC issue a demand for information to the licensees of GE BWRs with Mark I and Mark II containment designs on how the facility complies with General Design Criterion 44, Cooling Water, of Appendix A, General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants, to 10 CFR Part 50, and 10 CFR 50.49, Environmental Qualification of Electric Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants, with respect to spent fuel pools.

Background:

• On July 29, 2011, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.

• For a complete summary of NRC actions before February 1, 2012, please refer to the January 2012 monthly 10 CFR 2.206 status report (ADAMS Accession No. ML120370197).

• On February 8, 2012, the petition manager contacted the petitioner by e-mail to inform him that the topic of his petition, the effects of the spent fuel pool during accidents, is still under an ongoing NRC review as part of the lessons learned from the Fukushima event and that the NRC intends to inform the final decision on whether to implement the actions requested in the petition by the results of that review.

• On February 23, 2012, the OEDO approved an extension until January 31, 2013, to support issuance of the proposed Directors Decision since the issues raised in the petition pertain to the resolution of Near Term Task Force Recommendations associated with the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident.

Current Status/Next Steps:

• The next step is for the petition manager to prepare a proposed Directors Decision documenting the NRCs response to issues raised in the petition. The petitioner and licensee will receive an opportunity to comment on the proposed Directors Decision. The estimated issuance date of the proposed Directors Decision is January 31, 2013. The target issuance date of the final Directors Decision is 75 days after the issuance date of the proposed Directors Decision.

OPEN PETITION EDO # G20110262 (Petition Age: 13 months)

Facility: All GE BWR Mark I Units Licensee Type: Reactor Petitioner(s): Paul Gunter, Reactor Oversight Project; Kevin Kamps, Nuclear Waste Specialist Date of Petition: April 13, 2011 DD To Be Issued by: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Proposed DD Issuance: April 11, 2012 Final DD Issuance: TBD Last Contact with Petitioner: April 23, 2012 Petition Manager: Siva Lingam Case Attorney: Michael Clark Issues/Actions Requested:

For reasons specified within the petition request, the petitioner requests that the NRC immediately suspend the operating licenses GE BWR Mark I units to ensure that public health and safety are not unduly jeopardized. As stated by the petitioner, this petition focuses on the unreliability of the GE BWR Mark I containment system to mitigate a severe accident and the lack of emergency power systems to cool high density storage pools and radioactive reactor fuel assemblies.

Background:

• On April 13, 2011, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.

• For a complete summary of NRC actions through January 2012, see the January 2012 monthly 10 CFR 2.206 status report (ADAMS Accession No. ML120370197).

• On February 28, 2012, the petition manager contacted the petitioner by e-mail to inform him that the JLD will consider the concerns raised in his January 27, 2012, letter and will consider the letter as supplemental information to his original petition dated April 13, 2011.

Current Status/Next Steps:

• On April 3, 2012, the OEDO approved an extension to prepare the proposed Directors Decision until January 31, 2013.

• On April 23, 2012, the petitioner manager informed the petitioner that the petition due date was extended to January 31, 2013.

• The next step is for the petition manager to prepare a proposed Directors Decision documenting the NRCs response to issues raised in the petition. The petitioner and licensee will receive an opportunity to comment on the proposed Directors Decision. The estimated issuance date of the proposed Directors Decision was extended to January 31, 2013. The target issuance date of the final Directors Decision is 75 days after the issuance date of the proposed Directors Decision.

OPEN PETITION EDO # G20110579 (Petition Age: 9 months)

Facility: All U.S. Reactors Licensee Type: Reactor Petitioner(s): Natural Resources Defense Council Date of Petition: August 1, 2011 DD To Be Issued by: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Proposed DD Issuance: January 31, 2013 Final DD Issuance: TBD Last Contact with Petitioner: April 2, 2012 Petition Manager: Merrilee Banic Case Attorney: Michael Clark Issues/Actions Requested:

The petitioner requests that the NRC order licensees to take actions corresponding to recommendations in the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident, dated July 12, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML111861807). The petition consists of 12 letters.

Background:

• On August 1, 2011, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.

• For a summary of NRC actions from August through October 2011, see the November 2011 monthly 10 CFR 2.206 status report (ADAMS Accession No. ML11340A112).

• On November 15, 2011, the petition manager informed the petitioner of the PRBs initial recommendation to accept the petition for review. The petitioner declined an opportunity to address the PRB since the petition was being accepted for review.

• On February 28, 2012, the petition manager contacted the petitioner by e-mail to inform him that the staff is still evaluating his petition.

• On March 28, 2012, the OEDO approved an extension until January 31, 2013, to support issuance of the proposed Directors Decision since the issues raised in the petition pertain to the resolution of Near Term Task Force Recommendations associated with the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident.

Current Status/Next Steps:

• On April 2, 2012, the petition manager informed the petitioner that an extension until January 31, 2013 was obtained to evaluate the petition.

• The next step is for the petition manager to prepare a proposed Directors Decision documenting the NRCs response to issues raised in the petition. The petitioner and licensee will receive an opportunity to comment on the proposed Directors Decision. The estimated issuance date of the proposed Directors Decision is January 31, 2013. The target issuance date of the final Directors Decision is 75 days after the issuance date of the proposed Directors Decision.

OPEN PETITION EDO # G20110506 (Petition Age: 10 months)

Facility: Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS)

Licensee Type: Reactor Petitioner(s): Thomas Saporito, Saprodani Associates Date of Petition: July 3, 2011 DD To Be Issued by: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Proposed DD Issuance: May 12, 2012 Final DD Issuance: TBD Last Contact with Petitioner: March 30, 2012 Petition Manager: Lynnea Wilkins Case Attorney: Christopher Hair Issues/Actions Requested:

The petitioner requests that the NRC take escalated enforcement action against the CNS and issue a confirmatory order requiring the licensee to bring CNS to cold shutdown. The basis for the petition is that on June 19, 2011, the licensee declared an unusual event in connection with the Missouri River flooding its banks. The petition contends that the installed flood-protection measures and systems and barriers at CNS are not sufficient to adequately protect the reactor from a full-meltdown scenario; the licensees station blackout procedures are not sufficient to meet a challenging extended loss of offsite power caused by flooding, natural disasters, or terrorist attacks; the licensee failed to notify the NRC of the declaration of an unusual event within a 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> period; and the licensee continues to jeopardize public health and safety by failing to bring CNS to a cold shutdown.

Background:

• On July 3, 2011, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.

• For a complete summary of NRC actions through December 2011, see the January 2012 monthly 10 CFR 2.206 status report (ADAMS Accession No. ML120370197).

• On January 13, 2012, the NRC issued the acknowledgement letter (ADAMS Accession No. ML120030022).

• On March 30, 2012, the petition manager contacted the petitioner by e-mail to inform him that the staff is still evaluating his petition and has set a target response date of May 12, 2012.

Current Status/Next Steps:

• The next step is for the petition manager to prepare a proposed Directors Decision documenting the NRCs response to issues raised in the petition. The petitioner and licensee will receive an opportunity to comment on the proposed Directors Decision. The estimated issuance date of the proposed Directors Decision is May 12, 2012. The target issuance date of the final Directors Decision is 75 days after the issuance date of the proposed Directors Decision.

OPEN PETITION EDO # G20110492 (Petition Age: 10 months)

Facility: Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1 Licensee Type: Reactor Petitioner(s): Thomas Saporito, Saprodani Associates Date of Petition: June 26, 2011 DD To Be Issued by: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Proposed DD Issuance: May 12, 2012 Final DD Issuance: TBD Last Contact with Petitioner: March 30, 2012 Petition Manager: Lynnea Wilkins Case Attorney: Christopher Hair Issues/Actions Requested:

For detailed reasons described in the petition, the petitioner requests that the NRC take escalated enforcement action against the Omaha Public Power District and Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1. The basis for the petition is that on June 26, 2011, a 2,000-foot berm at Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1, collapsed from the forces of flood waters. The petitioner states that the licensees installed flood-protection measures and systems and barriers at Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1, are insufficient to adequately protect the reactor from a full-meltdown scenario and that the licensees station blackout procedures are not sufficient to meet the challenging extended loss of offsite power caused by floods and other natural disasters or terrorist attacks.

Background:

• On June 26, 2011, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.

• For a complete summary of NRC actions through November 2011, see the 2011 December monthly 10 CFR 2.206 status report (ADAMS Accession No. ML120120146).

• On December 13, 2011, the petition manager informed the petitioner of the PRBs initial recommendation. The petitioner declined an opportunity to address the PRB since the petition was being accepted for review.

• On January 13, 2012, the NRC issued the acknowledgement letter (ADAMS Accession No. ML120030022) accepting the petition for review.

• On March 30, 2012, the petition manager contacted the petitioner by e-mail to inform him that the staff is still evaluating his petition and has set a target response date of May 12, 2012.

Current Status/Next Steps:

• The next step is for the petition manager to prepare a proposed Directors Decision documenting the NRCs response to issues raised in the petition. The petitioner and licensee will receive an opportunity to comment on the proposed Directors Decision. The estimated issuance date of the proposed Directors Decision is May 12, 2012. The target issuance date of the final Directors Decision is 75 days after the issuance date of the proposed Directors Decision.

OPEN PETITION EDO # G20110757 (Petition Age: 6 months)

Facility: North Anna Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Licensee Type: Reactor Petitioner(s): Beyond Nuclear (Joint Petitioners)

Date of Petition: October 20, 2011 DD To Be Issued by: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Proposed DD Issuance: July 13, 2012 Final DD Issuance: TBD Last Contact with Petitioner: March 16, 2012 Petition Manager: Jon Thompson Case Attorney: Mauri Lemoncelli Issues/Actions Requested:

In the wake of the August 23, 2011, earthquake at the North Anna Nuclear Plant, which exceeded the design basis earthquake peak ground acceleration for the plant, and for reasons described in the petition, the petitioners request suspension of the operating license and restart contingent upon specific actions listed in the petition.

Background:

• On October 20, 2011, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.

• For a summary of NRC actions from October through December 2011, see the January 2011 monthly 10 CFR 2.206 status report (ADAMS Accession No. ML120370180).

• On January 10, 2012, the PRB met internally to discuss the petition, as supplemented by the petitioner, and to make an initial recommendation on whether to accept the petition for review.

• On January 19, 2012, the petition manager e-mailed the petitioner the PRB initial recommendation to partially accept the petition for review.

• On February 2, 2012, a public meeting was held at which the petitioner addressed the PRB. The meeting notice is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12018A228.

• On March 16, 2012, the NRC issued the acknowledgement letter (ADAMS Accession No. ML12060A090) to document the PRBs decision to partially accept the petition for review.

Current Status/Next Steps:

• The next step is for the petition manager to prepare a proposed Directors Decision documenting the NRCs response to issues raised in the petition. The petitioner and licensee will receive an opportunity to comment on the proposed Directors Decision. The estimated issuance date of the proposed Directors Decision is July 13, 2012. The target issuance date of the final Directors Decision is 75 days after the issuance date of the proposed Directors Decision.

OPEN PETITION UNDER CONSIDERATION EDO # G20100454 (Petition Age: 22 months)

Facility: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Licensee Type: Reactor Petitioner(s): Mary Lampert Date of Petition: July 19, 2010 DD To Be Issued by: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Proposed DD Issuance: TBD Final DD Issuance: TBD Last Contact with Petitioner: April 9, 2012 Petition Manager: Richard Guzman Case Attorney: Mauri Lemoncelli Issues/Actions Requested:

For detailed reasons described in the petition (G20100454), the petitioner requested that the NRC issue a demand for information order requiring Entergy, the licensee for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, to demonstrate that all inaccessible cables at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station are capable of performing their required function, be it safety or nonsafety related.

As supplemented on August 13, 2010 (G20100527), the petitioner requested that the NRC issue an order that requires Entergy, the licensee for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, to immediately perform an updated hydrogeologic analysis. On November 15, 2010 (G20100689), the petitioner requested that the Commission review the PRBs decision with respect to G20100527.

Background:

• On July 19, 2010, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.

• For a summary of NRC actions through November 2011, see the November 2011 monthly 10 CFR 2.206 status report (ADAMS Accession No. ML11341A040).

• On December 7, 2011, the OEDO approved an extension until June 29, 2012, to issue an acknowledgment letter.

• On February 6, 2012, the petition manager e-mailed Ms. Lampert notifying her that there has been no change in the status of the petition since the last contact on November 28, 2011.

Current Status/Next Steps:

• On April 9, 2012, the petition manager e-mailed Ms. Lampert notifying her that there has been no change in the status of the petition since the last contact on February 6, 2012.

• As of April 30, 2012, the petition continues to be held in abeyance pending an outcome of the above-mentioned contention under the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station license renewal hearing process.

OPEN PETITION UNDER CONSIDERATION EDO # G20110740 (Petition Age: 7 months)

Facility: Callaway Nuclear Generating Station Licensee Type: Reactor Petitioner(s): Lawrence Criscione Date of Petition: October 7, 2011 DD To Be Issued by: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Proposed DD Issuance: TBD Final DD Issuance: TBD Last Contact with Petitioner: March 29, 2012 Petition Manager: Mohan Thadani Case Attorney: Michael Clark Issues/Actions Requested:

For reasons described in the petition, the petitioner states that the reactor shutdown procedure (OTG-ZZ-00005) at the Callaway Nuclear Generating Station is not compliant with the plant Technical Specifications and requests that the NRC take enforcement action against the licensee by prohibiting the licensee from shutting down the plant for the refueling outage, until the practice of bypassing the P-4/564 Feedwater Isolation Signal is reviewed and approved by NRC, and the plant is determined to be in compliance with Technical Specification 3.3.2.

Background:

• On October 7, 2011, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.

• For a summary of NRC actions before March 1, 2012, see the February 2012 monthly 10 CFR 2.206 status report (ADAMS Accession No. ML12059A094).

• On March 22, 2012, the petition manager informed the petitioner of the PRBs initial recommendation to not accept the petition for review. The petitioner was offered a second opportunity to address the PRB.

• On March 27, 2012, the petitioner indicated that will be unable to address the PRB a second time and requested that the PRB not put his petition on hold, but consider the issues identified in his petition and supplement.

• On March 29, 2012, the petition manager informed the petitioner that the PRB will give careful attention to the information he has already provided in the petition and its supplement.

Current Status/Next Steps:.

• The PRB will consider the petitioners request and address the concerns that the petitioner has restated in his email, dated March 27, 2012, and make a final recommendation.

OPEN PETITION UNDER CONSIDERATION EDO # G20120022 (Petition Age: 4 months)

Facility: Palisades Nuclear Plant Licensee Type: Reactor Petitioner(s): Michael Mulligan Date of Petition: January 10, 2012 DD To Be Issued by: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Proposed DD Issuance: TBD Final DD Issuance: TBD Last Contact with Petitioner: March 19, 2012 Petition Manager: Mahesh Chawla Case Attorney: Brett Klukan Issues/Actions Requested:

The petitioner requested immediate shutdown of Palisades Nuclear Plant. As the basis for this request, the petitioner is listing all the equipment failures at Palisades Nuclear Plant and making accusations of falsification of records by Entergy Personnel. He also considers the Reactor Oversight Process to be inadequate, in part due to personnel resource limitation in NRC.

Background:

• On January 10, 2012, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.

• On January 19, 2012, the PRB met and rejected the petitioners request for immediate shutdown.

• On January 24, 2012, the petition manager contacted the petitioner to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 process and to offer the petitioner an opportunity to address the PRB in person or by teleconference.

• On January 31, 2012, the PRB held a teleconference with the petitioner before the internal PRB meeting to make an initial recommendation on the petition.

• On February 22, 2012, the PRB met internally to make an initial recommendation on whether to accept the petition for review.

• On March 12, 2012, the petitioner was informed of the PRBs initial recommendation and was also given the 2nd opportunity to address the PRB on March 19, 2012.

• On March 19, 2012, the second teleconference was held by PRB with the petitioner.

Current Status/Next Steps:

• The PRB will finalize the initial recommendation based on the information provided in the teleconference.

OPEN PETITION UNDER CONSIDERATION EDO # G20120052 (Petition Age: 3 months)

Facility: Peach Bottom Atomic Power Stations (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3 Licensee Type: Reactor Petitioner(s): Michael Mulligan Date of Petition: January 24, 2012 DD To Be Issued by: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Proposed DD Issuance: TBD Final DD Issuance: TBD Last Contact with Petitioner: April 10, 2012 Petition Manager: John Hughey Case Attorney: Christopher Hair Issues/Actions Requested:

The petitioner requests immediate shutdown of PBAPS, Units 2 and 3, and that all safety relief valve (SRV) seals and actuators be replaced with a design with sufficient margin of safety before start-up. As the basis for this request, the petitioner references the Licensees LER 3-11-03 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11325A383) associated with the failure of the Unit 3, 71B Automatic Depressurization System SRV on September 25, 2011.

Background:

• On January 24, 2012, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.

• On January 31, 2012, the petition manager contacted the petitioner to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 process and to offer the petitioner an opportunity to address the PRB in person or by teleconference.

• On February 3, 2012, the PRB met and rejected the petitioners request for immediate shutdown.

• On February 17, 2012, the PRB held a teleconference with the petitioner before the internal PRB meeting to make an initial recommendation on the petition.

• On February 23, 2012, the OEDO approved an extension until April 24, 2012.

• On March 7, 2012, the PRB met internally to make the initial recommendation, which is to not accept the petition for review.

• On March 15, 2012, the petition manager notified the petitioner of the initial recommendation and offered the petitioner a second opportunity to address the PRB.

• On March 17, 2012, the petitioner accepted this second opportunity to address the PRB.

Current Status/Next Steps:

• On April 10, 2012, a second teleconference was held with the petitioner.

• On April 19, 2012, the OEDO approved an extension until June 8, 2012, to provide the PRB with additional time to consider the supplemental information provided during the second teleconference and to support the PRBs ability to reach a final recommendation.

OPEN PETITION UNDER CONSIDERATION EDO # G20120142 (Petition Age: 2 months)

Facility: Vogtle Electric Generating Plants (Vogtle), Units 3 and 4 Licensee Type: Reactor Petitioner(s): Mark Leyse Date of Petition: February 28, 2012 DD To Be Issued by: Office of New Reactors Proposed DD Issuance: TBD Final DD Issuance: TBD Last Contact with Petitioner: April 10, 2012 Petition Manager: Denise McGovern Case Attorney: Marcia Simon Issues/Actions Requested:

The petitioner requests that the NRC order the licensee of Vogtle, Units 3 and 4 to conduct safety analyses of severe accident scenarios in which the AP1000 hydrogen igniter system would be actuated too late, after a local hydrogen concentration of eight percent or greater was reached in the containment, which could cause a fast hydrogen deflagration, and after a local detonable concentration of hydrogen developed in the containment, which could cause a hydrogen detonation. The petitioner also requests that the NRC order the licensee of Vogtle, Units 3 and 4 to demonstrate that actuating hydrogen igniters in a severe accident after the core-exit temperature exceeds a predetermined temperature (1200 oF) is a productive and safe emergency response guideline for all severe accident scenarios.

Background:

• On February 28, 2012, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.

• On March 6, 2012, the petition manager contacted the petitioner to discuss the 10 CFR 2.206 process and to offer the petitioner an opportunity to address the PRB in person or by teleconference.

• On March 13, 2012, the OEDO approved an extension until May 31, 2012, to permit additional time to make an initial recommendation.

• On March 28, 2012, the PRB held a teleconference with the petitioner before the internal PRB meeting to make an initial recommendation on the petition.

Current Status/Next Steps:

• On April 10, 2012, the petitioner submitted supplemental information (ADAMS Accession Nos. are ML12104A071 and ML12102A170).

• On April 24, 2012, the PRB met internally to make the initial recommendation. The PRB decided that further consideration is needed to make the initial recommendation.

OPEN PETITION UNDER CONSIDERATION EDO # G20120149 (Petition Age: 2 months)

Facility: Palisades Nuclear Plant (Palisades)

Licensee Type: Reactor Petitioner(s): Thomas Saporito Date of Petition: March 1, 2012 DD To Be Issued by: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Proposed DD Issuance: TBD Final DD Issuance: TBD Last Contact with Petitioner: April 2, 2012 Petition Manager: Mahesh Chawla Case Attorney: Mauri Lemoncelli Issues/Actions Requested:

The petitioner requests that the NRC immediately shutdown Palisades. The petitioner expresses concern with various plant events such as direct current bus event, which occurred on September 23, 2011, and the failure of service water pump couplings in 2007, where the licensee failed to take appropriate actions. The petitioner requests the following actions: 1) escalated enforcement action against Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. to suspend or revoke the NRC license granted to the licensee for operation of Palisades; 2) issue a notice of violation with a proposed civil penalty against the licensee in the total amount of One-Million dollars; and 3) issue a Confirmatory Order requiring the licensee to take specific actions and bring Palisades to a cold-shutdown mode of operation until a number of requested actions specified in the petition take place.

Background:

• On March 1, 2012, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.

• On March 12, 2012, the petition manager contacted the petitioner via e-mail to discuss the petition process and provide him the opportunity to address the PRB.

• On March 15, 2012, the petitioner accepted the request to address the PRB by teleconference.

• On March 16, 2012, the PRB met and rejected the petitioners request for immediate action.

• On March 20, 2012, the petition manager notified the petitioner of this decision and provided the details of the teleconference to address the PRB scheduled for April 2, 2012.

• On March 27, 2012, the OEDO approved an extension until June 29, 2012.

Current Status/Next Steps:

• On April 2, 2012, a teleconference with the petitioner was held before the PRB holds its internal meeting to make an initial recommendation.

• On April 19, 2012, the PRB met to make an intial decision on the petition. The PRB decided that a second meeting is needed to further discuss the petition and make a recommendation.

OPEN PETITION UNDER CONSIDERATION EDO # G20120172 (Petition Age: 2 months)

Facility: James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (FitzPatrick)

Licensee Type: Reactor Petitioner(s): Beyond Nuclear et al. (Joint Petitioners)

Date of Petition: March 9, 2012 DD To Be Issued by: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Proposed DD Issuance: TBD Final DD Issuance: TBD Last Contact with Petitioner: April 17, 2012 Petition Manager: Bhalchandra Vaidya Case Attorney: Carrie Safford Issues/Actions Requested:

The joint petitioners request that the FitzPatrick operating license be immediately suspended as the result of the undue risk to the public health and safety presented by the operators reliance on non-conservative and wrong assumptions that went into the analysis of the capability of FitzPatricks pre-existing ductwork containment vent system. The joint petitioners state that the risks and uncertainty presented by FitzPatricks assumptions and decisions, in regard to NRC Generic Letter 89-16, as associated with the day-to-day operations of this nuclear power plant now constitute an undue risk to public health and safety. The joint petitioners request that the suspension of the operating license be in effect pending final resolution of a public challenge to the adequacy of the pre-existing vent line in light of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear accident. The joint petitioners do not seek or request that FitzPatrick operators now install the Direct Torus Vent System as it is demonstrated to have experienced multiple failures to mitigate the severe nuclear accidents at Fukushima Dai-ichi.

Background:

• On March 9, 2012, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.

• On March 14, 2012, the petition manager contacted the petitioner via e-mail to discuss the petition process and provide the petitioner an opportunity to address the PRB.

• On March 16, 2012, the petitioner accepted the request to address the PRB in person.

• On March 20, 2012, the PRB met and rejected the petitioners request for immediate action.

• On March 27, 2012, the petition manager notified the petitioner of this decision.

Current Status/Next Steps:

• On April 17, 2012, a public meeting was held with the petitioner and joint petitioners (ADAMS Accession No. ML12102A008).

• The next step is for the PRB to hold its internal meeting to make an initial recommendation (date TBD).

OPEN PETITION UNDER CONSIDERATION EDO # G20120253 (Petition Age: 1 month)

Facility: Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit 2 Licensee Type: Reactor Petitioner(s): Natural Resources Defense Council Date of Petition: April 16, 2012 DD To Be Issued by: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Proposed DD Issuance: TBD Final DD Issuance: TBD Last Contact with Petitioner: April 18, 2012 Petition Manager: Douglas Pickett Case Attorney: Chrisopher Hair Issues/Actions Requested:

The petitioner requests that the NRC order the licensee of Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Unit 2 remove the passive autocatalytic recombiner (PAR) system from the unit, because the PAR system could have unintended ignitions in the event of a severe accident, which, in turn, could cause a hydrogen detonation.

Background:

• On April 16, 2012, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.

Current Status/Next Steps:

• On April 18, 2012, the petition manager contacted the petitioner by telephone to discuss the petition process and provide the petitioner an opportunity to address the PRB. The petitioner accepted the opportunity to address the PRB (date TBD).

OPEN PETITION UNDER CONSIDERATION EDO # G20120269 (Petition Age: 1 month)

Facility: Byron Station Units 1 and 2; Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2 Licensee Type: Reactor Petitioner(s): Barry Quigley Date of Petition: April 20, 2012 DD To Be Issued by: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Proposed DD Issuance: TBD Final DD Issuance: TBD Last Contact with Petitioner: April 26, 2012 Petition Manager: Joel Wiebe Case Attorney: TBD Issues/Actions Requested:

The petitioner requests that the NRC require that Byron and Braidwood, Units 1 and 2 be immediately shutdown until all Turbine Building High Energy Line Break concerns are identified and those important to safety are corrected.

Background:

• On April 20, 2012, the petitioner filed a petition for an enforcement action under 10 CFR 2.206.

Current Status/Next Steps:

• On April 25, 2012, the petition manager contacted the petitioner and offered him an opportunity to address the PRB.

• On April 26, 2012, the petition manager confirmed that the petitioner wanted to address the PRB.

• The next step is for the PRB to meet internally on the request for immediate action, currently scheduled for May 4, 2012.

Enclosure 2 ADAMS Accession No. ML12122A071 Age Statistics for Open 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions

AGE STATISTICS FOR AGENCY 10 CFR 2.206 OPEN PETITIONS Assigned Facility/ Incoming Petition Acknowledgment Proposed Final Directors Comments on the Completion Goal Status Action Petitioner Petition Review Board Letter/Days from Directors Decision/Age in 4

Office (PRB) Incoming Decision(DD)/Ag Days 2 3 Meeting/Days Petition e in Days from Incoming 1

Petition The goal to issue the acknowledgment letter was not met. The PRB meeting was delayed to support a request from the petitioner to address the PRB by phone before the Board Crystal River met internally to make an initial Nuclear recommendation. The delay in holding the Generating Plant, 12/05/09 01/07/10 03/04/10 PRB meeting impacted the NRCs ability to Unit 3 issue an acknowledgment letter in accordance NRR 33 days 86 days Thomas Saporito with the NRCs timeliness goals. NRR obtained an extension, which was approved by G20090690 the OEDO, to support the PRB with scheduling of the initial conference call with the petitioner, the PRB initial meetings, a possible second presentation by the petitioner to the PRB by phone, and issuance of the acknowledgement letter.

The goal to hold a PRB meeting, in which the petitioner is invited to participate, within 2 weeks of receipt of the petition, was not met.

Because of the complexity of the petition, and the ongoing staff workload associated with the U.S. Nuclear earthquake in Japan, the earliest availability for Power Reactors the PRB members to meet (to coincide with the (Related to Japan 04/14/11 06/28/11 petitioners availability) was April 14, 2011.

NRR Earthquake) 03/12/11 33 days 108 days The goal to issue an acknowledgment letter Thomas Saporito within 35 days of the date of the incoming G20110171 petition was not met. The delay in holding the PRB meeting impacted the NRCs ability to issue an acknowledgment letter in accordance with the NRCs timeliness goals. NRR obtained an extension, which was approved by the OEDO, to support the PRBs ability to hold 1

Goal is to hold a PRB meeting, in which the petitioner is invited to participate, within 2 weeks of receipt of the petition.

2 Goal is to issue an acknowledgment letter within 35 days of the date of the incoming petition.

3 Goal is to issue a proposed DD within 120 days of the acknowledgment letter.

4 Goal is to issue a final DD within 45 days of the end of the comment period.

an additional conference call with the petitioner, and to coordinate the internal PRB discussions which involved a significant number of staff throughout the entire agency.

In addition, milestones are taking longer to meet for Fukushima related petitions such as this one because decisions will depend on the staffs Fukushima review.

The goal to hold a PRB meeting, in which the petitioner is invited to participate, within 2 weeks of receipt of the petition, was not met.

Indian Point The petitioner requested this first opportunity, Nuclear and the earliest availability which coincided Generating, with the petitioners availability was Units 1, 2, and 3 May 9, 2011.

Eric The goal to issue an acknowledgment letter NRR 03/28/11 05/09/11 06/30/11 within 35 days of the date of the incoming Schneiderman, Office of the 42 days 94 days petition was not met. The delay in holding the Attorney General, PRB meeting impacted the NRCs ability to State of New York issue an acknowledgment letter in accordance with the agencys timeliness goals. NRR G20110221 obtained an extension, which was approved by the OEDO, to support the PRBs ability to hold a public meeting with the petitioner and to coordinate the internal PRB discussions.

The goal to hold a PRB meeting, in which the petitioner is invited to participate, within 2 weeks of receipt of the petition, was not met because of the complexity of the petition and the number of co-petitioners, and the time needed to plan and hold a public meeting General Electric before the PRB met.

Boiling-Water Reactor Mark I The goal to issue an acknowledgment letter Unit (Related to within 35 days of the date of the incoming 07/12/11 12/13/11 petition was not met. The delay in holding the NRR Japan 04/13/11 nd Earthquake) 90 days 154 days PRB meeting, planning and holding a 2 public meeting, and the need to evaluate new Paul Gunter information submitted by the co-petitioners impacted the NRCs ability to issue an G20110262 acknowledgment letter in accordance with the agencys timeliness goals.

In addition, milestones are taking longer to meet for Fukushima related petitions such as this one because decisions will depend on the staffs Fukushima review.

The goal to hold a PRB meeting, in which the General Electric petitioner is invited to participate, within Boiling-Water 2 weeks of receipt of the petition, was not met.

Reactor Mark I The delay in holding the PRB meeting and Mark II Units impacted the NRCs ability to issue an 09/08/11 11/10/11 NRR David Lochbaum, 07/29/11 acknowledgment letter in accordance with the Union of 41 days 104 days agencys timeliness goals.

Concerned In addition, milestones are taking longer to Scientists meet for Fukushima related petitions such as G20110563 this one because decisions will depend on the staffs Fukushima review.

The goal to hold a PRB meeting, in which the petitioner is invited to participate, within 2 weeks of receipt of the petition, was not met.

The delay in holding the PRB meeting All licensees of impacted the NRCs ability to issue an power reactors acknowledgment letter in accordance with the agencys timeliness goals. The delay was Natural 11/15/11 12/28/11 NRR 08/01/11 caused because the petitioner requested time Resources 107 days 150 days to review NTTF task force recommendations Defense Council and Commission direction regarding them G20110579 before meeting with the PRB.

In addition, milestones are taking longer to meet for Fukushima related petitions such as this one because decisions will depend on the staffs Fukushima review.

The goal to hold a PRB meeting, in which the petitioner is invited to participate, within 2 weeks of receipt of the petition, was not met.

The delay in holding the PRB meeting impacted the NRCs ability to issue an acknowledgment letter in accordance with the agencys timeliness goals. The delay was Cooper Nuclear caused by scheduling conflicts between the Station 11/28/11 01/13/12 petitioner and PRB members. The delay was NRR 07/03/11 also due to the PRBs determination that Thomas Saporito 148 days 194 days additional information was needed prior to G20110506 making a decision on the initial recommendation and request for immediate action.

In addition, milestones are taking longer to meet for Fukushima related petitions such as this one because decisions will depend on the staffs Fukushima review.

The goal to hold a PRB meeting, in which the petitioner is invited to participate, within 2 weeks of receipt of the petition, was not met.

The delay in holding the PRB meeting impacted the NRCs ability to issue an acknowledgment letter in accordance with the agencys timeliness goals. The delay was Fort Calhoun caused by scheduling conflicts between the 11/28/11 01/13/12 petitioner and PRB members. The delay was NRR Thomas Saporito 06/26/11 also due to the PRBs determination that 155 days 201 days G20110492 additional information was needed prior to making a decision on the initial recommendation and request for immediate action.

In addition, milestones are taking longer to meet for Fukushima related petitions such as this one because decisions will depend on the staffs Fukushima review.

North Anna The goal to issue the final DD was met.

Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 09/29/11 02/22/12 02/22/12 04/26/12 NRR 09/08/11 Thomas Saporito 21 days 167 days 167 days 44 days G20110668 The goal to hold a PRB meeting, in which the petitioner is invited to participate, within North Anna 2 weeks of receipt of the petition, was not met.

Nuclear Plant The delay was caused by the time needed to Units 1 and 2 12/12/11 03/16/12 plan and hold a public meeting before the PRB NRR 10/20/11 met. The delay in holding the PRB meeting Beyond Nuclear 53 days 148 days nd and the request by the petitioner for a 2 (Joint Petitioners) meeting with the PRB impacted the NRCs G20110757 ability to issue an acknowledgment letter in accordance with the agencys timeliness goals.